The Case of the Nightmare Neighbor Maggie bought a house in a quiet neighborhood in Kern County, California. A few months after Maggie moved into her new home, her neighbor, Tim, bought a dog named Rocky. Soon after getting Rocky, Tim brought home four more dogs, all of whom barked constantly. Maggie complained about the noise to Tim, who refused to do anything about it. Because of the noise from the barking dogs, Maggie cannot sleep. As a result, Maggie has become a physical wreck. She has seen a doctor to get anxiety medication which cost her $200. Things have gotten so bad that Maggie put her house up for sale. However, two prospective buyers declined to go through with the house sale because they heard the barking dogs. A local real estate agent told Maggie that the barking dog issue has devalued her property by $30,000, and that if she wants to sell the house, she'll have to sell it at a loss. Angry, Maggie contacted Kem County and complained that Tim was running a kennel in a residential neighborhood, which is a violation of Section 123 of the Kern County zoning law. Maggie demanded that Kern County take all appropriate action against Tim for violation of Section 123 of the Kern County zoning law. However, the County refused to act and refused to enforce the zoning law, claiming this was a "civil matter" between Maggie and Tim. Maggie subsequently filed a civil lawsuit in Superior Court against both Tim and the County 1. With respect to her claim against Kem County, does Maggie have standing to sue? Why or why not? 2. With respect to her claim against Tim, does Maggie have standing to sue? Why or why not? The Case of the Long-Armed Judgment Bockman Industries, an Arizona corporation, sold 3,000 action dolls to Toy Kingdom, Inc., a company based in North Carolina. When Toy Kingdom failed to pay the $3,000 owed for the dolls, Bockman Industries sued Toy Kingdom in an Arizona court, pursuant to Arizona's long arm statute, and obtained an Arizona judgment against Toy Kingdom. However, Toy Kingdom claimed the Arizona judgment was invalid because Toy Kingdom did not have "minimum contacts" with the state of Arizona. Toy Kingdom stated that because it was incorporated in North Carolina and had its principal place of business in North Carolina, it was out of the reach of the Arizona court Is Toy Kingdom's claim correct? Why or why not